Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Bob Beckel … almost. I do admire his courage for being the lone liberal on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” on Fox News.

Tonight, he’s in the position of defending Obama’s silence regarding the popular uprising in Iran related to that country’s recent election. Beckel stated that he felt Obama was advised to remain quiet to prevent the current regime from having an excuse to crack down harder on the protesters. He stated that he felt Obama making a statement in favor of the protesters would give the regime an excuse to blame the current uprisings on the United States and it would, as a consequence, deal more harshly with the protesters.

Who else thinks that the current paranoid government of Iran actually needs an excuse to blame the current uprising on the United States or any other western power? It has never appeared to me that the current despotic government of Iran has needed any excuse to blame the United States for any and everything that they couldn’t deal with intelligently.

According to a recent report, as many as 28 million people in Iran may have voted against Ahmadenejad as opposed to the less than 7 million who were reported to have voted for him. Those are fairly impressive numbers … more than 4 to 1 against the current Iranian leader. It’s highly unlikely that 28 million Iranians have all of a sudden become pro American. After more than 30 years of oppression by their despotic government, it’s much more likely that the 28 million are simply voting against their current rulers and simply prefer anything or anyone rather than who’s in power now.

So, the question really is, “Is President Obama protecting the protesters from greater oppression and harm; or, is he simply dropping the ball by not providing them with moral support and encouragement that they may desperately need?” What’s wrong with the leader of America simply stating that America favors free and open elections where evey qualified person’s vote counts … in any country? Has he forgotten that this very premise is the reason the United States of America was founded, the reason for the American Revolution, the desire for the American colonists to have representation and not feel disenfranchised by their government? Apparently, voicing the founding principle of this country sticks in President Obama’s craw. Fear of the reaction of a two bit dictator in Iran quells him into silence.

Apparently, hundreds of Iranians may have already lost their lives in the ongoing protests with thousands more injured and jailed. Does the Iranian government really need an excuse to crack down further on the protesters? Those Iranian protesters have infinitely more courage than our president.

The deafening silence of the current administration does send a message … both to Americans and Iranians. If the election in Iran was so corrupt that millions of Iranians feel the election was stolen from them, the United States government led by the Obama administration will do nothing, not even by simply providing a verbal message of support for free and honest elections in that country.

So, Bob Beckel finds himself in the position of somehow having to defend the Obama administration for remaining silent to “protect” the protesters.

Where would we be today if Ronald Reagan had not said, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.”? Would the Berliners have had the courage to eventually confront their communist oppressors and bring the end to the division of Germany and the eventual destruction of the “Iron Curtain” that imprisoned Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime? It’s entirely possible that they and other eastern Europeans might have reached the same point today without the encouragement of President Reagan. But, it’s also a definite fact that every action that President Reagan took was aimed at that goal … to assist the Eastern Europeans in obtaining their freedom … and his speeches and actions didn’t hinder the process.

Well, as far as foreign policy and diplomacy are concerned, Barack Obama isn’t even in the same ballpark with Ronald Reagan. He doesn’t even hold a candle to the bungling JFK. At least Kennedy had the courage of his convictions even if he bungled repeatedly due to his naivety.

The current situation in Iran and the lack of response from Obama brings into question exactly what Barack Obama’s convictions are; or, if he, in fact, has any.This man makes the timid Jimmy Carter look like Atilla the Hun … and that’s pretty amazing.

After a rousing and protracted round of applause, Bill Clinton gave an enthusiastic endorsement for Barack Obama apparently laying aside all of the animosity that attracted so much attention during the Democratic primary campaigns. In doing so, Bill Clinton requested that the nation return to the prosperity of the 1990’s under the Clinton administration.

One of his last points was that like he, Bill Clinton, in 1992 was young and accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president, Barack Obama is also being accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president. Clinton claimed that, as his presidency was successful, Obama’s presidency will also be successful.

Bill Clinton did leave out any reference to John Kennedy who was also a very young president.

What Clinton also failed to point out were the differences in the world situation today compared to the beginning of his presidency, situations like the current Iraq War, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Russia as a threat to peace and stability in Europe, problems and threats that Bill Clinton didn’t have to face. A young and relatively inexperienced John F. Kennedy did have similar problems and his inexperience was exhibited by an ineffective meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, resulting in the construction of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis which nearly led to World War III and the guarantee of Cuba remaining a communist state by selling out the Cuban exiles in the United States and elsewhere. Clinton, in contrast, was inaugurated president in a time of relative peace. The immediate threat created by Iraq following its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait had been eliminated by the first Iraq War under the Bush administration and the Soviet Union had already been dissolved through the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Neither did Clinton mention his failed policy and withdrawal from Somalia, his failure to neutralize bin Laden when an opportunity arose, his failure to recognize the Al Quaeda threat that existed after the first bombing of the World Trade Center which led to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center or his failed negotiations with North Korea, to name a few. He also failed to mention it was his policy and administration which began the process of globilization or the American economy which, as claimed by many, has led to the loss of many high paying American jobs manufacturing jobs as well as jobs in the technology sector. During his administration the process of outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries began in full force.

Clinton did take credit for a period of prosperity during the 1990’s. He failed to mention that the economy was already recovering from a mild downturn in economic growth in the first part of the 1990’s prior to his inauguaration nor did he mention that many of his expensive and socialistic plans were curbed by the election of a Republican controlled Congress two years after his election which led to the moderation of many of his policies and plans.

Clinton stated that Barack Obama would be a staunch defender and supporter of the Constitution failing to recognizie Obama’s equivocation of the Second Amendment and his ardent support for a judiciary which is prone to legislate from the bench and not follow the Constitution, effectively bypassing the elected legislative branch of government.

Clinton attacked to Bush administration for “cronyism” following the Katrina disaster in New Orleans several years ago, again failing to admit to the political cronyism exhibited by the then Democratic governor of Louisiana and the re-elected Democratic mayor of New Orleans resulting in billions of dollars of waste and fraud in Lousiana following Katrina. He also failed to mention that the citizens of Louisiana have since partially corrected that problem by electing a Republican governor for that state.

He did mention that Barack Obama has the background to deal with the changing population of the United States and the growing interdependence of the United States with the rest of the world. I suppose he was referring to Obama’s suggestion that all Americans should learn Spanish and that Obama with his history of multiculturalism would be more inclined to help Americans adjust to a position of more dependence on the rest of the world rather than achieving a degree of independence and security from world threats.

I suppose like those politicians of old, like the one that I heard many years ago,Once Upon a Time at a County Democratic Party Meeting …,Bill Clinton is one of those who put party first over all else. Bill Clinton is a great speaker. Everyone knows that the true sign of a great speaker is their ability to inspire as much by what they conveniently fail to say as what they actually do say.

Fox News reported this morning that Susan Rice, a senior foreign policy advisor for the Obama campaign, on MSNBC last night accused Senator John McCain of aggravating the Russian invasion of the country of Georgia, stating that he shot from the hip.

Senator McCain, unlike Senator Obama, has been a long time friend of the president of Georgia,

Mikheil Saakashvili, and has stated in recent interviews that he has been in daily contact with the president of that country. Senator McCain has also stated that he has been a ardent supporter of the emerging democracies which have been created from the former client states of the USSR.

While Senator Obama has been on vacation in Hawaii and President Bush has been at the Beijing Olympics games, Senator McCain has been actively campaigning as well as staying on top of the situation as it developed in Georgia.

, they don’t necessarily guarantee either an accurate or realistic assessment of world situations.

Historical perspective has repeatedly shown that weak responses to Soviet goals and aggression have been met with more overt aggression. There is no reason to believe that the current regime, led by former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, would react any differently.

From Truman’s Berlin Airlift in response to Stalin’s ground blockade of that city to Kennedy’s Cuban blockade in response to Kruschev’s placement of strategic nuclear missiles in Cuba, positions of strength have been the only position that Soviet or Russian leaders have respected.

Positions perceived as weakness such as Kennedy’s meeting with Kruschev in Vienna or Jimmy Carter’s unilateral disarmament policies have only been met with more aggressive actions on the part of the Soviet or Russian leadership.

John Kennedy was naive in his initial dealings with the Soviet leadership which led to the construction of the Berlin Wall and the USSR’s decision to place nuclear missiles in Cuba. Jimmy Carter was equally naive by reducing America’s naval surface fleet by nearly two thirds.

Quite frankly, the entire process of downsizing the US military as a “peace dividend” which began after the end of the first Iraq War under the first President Bush and vigoriously continued under the Clinton administration and Bush II’s administration has appeared to be a serious error since the beginning of the current Iraqi War.

Russia’s rapid deployment of large numbers of troops into Georgia as well as it’s blockade of the Georgian coast within 24 hours of the onset of hostilities with surface ships based in the Ukraine on the other side of the Black Sea as well as the cyber attacks on Georgian government websites which began weeks before the Russian invasion of that country readily show that the Russian strategy was well thought out and planned long before Georgia’s attempt to regain control of South Ossetia, part of its sovereign territory, which lies in the heart of the country. The Russian tactic of issuing passports to citizens of a foreign country to use “protection of Russian citizens” is a poorly veiled excuse for it’s aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.

It has become very evident that the Russian leadership has ambitions of restoring its control over the sovereign nations of eastern Europe even though the old Soviet government is gone.

The United States and the other countries of NATO need to decide if they are going to determine the future of Europe or allow Russia to reassert it dominence in eastern Europe, in essence reestablishing the previous Soviet or Russian empire.

Much has been said about excluding Russia from the G8 as a response to their actions. Further action needs to be taken. NATO and the EU need to put all of the countries in eastern Europe on a fast track to membership which will draw a line in the sand at the very borders of Russia. Otherwise, the Russians will take the liberty to draw their own line in the sand at a position of their choosing, a process they’ve already begun.

In addition the United States needs to begin the painful process of rebuilding its military to a capability that will deter aggression by foreign governments or any other entity. Ronald Reagan knew and proved that peace can only be achieved from a position of strength.

Susan Rice has impressive credentials. So does Barack Obama, So did Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy. Their impressive credentials and intellect didn’t keep aggressive leaders like Nikita Kruschev or Leonid Brezhnev from chewing them up and spitting them out … figuratively speaking. It won’t keep people like Vladimir Putin from doing the same to Ms. Rice and Senator Obama.

I’ve known a number of very intelligent people during my lifetime who didn’t have the sense to get in out of a shower of rain or a thunderstorm. I’m really wondering about Ms. Rice. It could be that the person who inadvertently shot from the hip was Susan Rice and not John McCain. Maybe she needs to think a little bit more before she speaks.

Ms. Rice’s comment that John McCain has aggravated the situation in Georgia sounds overtly political as well as simplistic and naive.